Bankok's can of worms: Constitutional amendment

Chang Noi, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

What are the prospects for the 1997 Constitution when amendment becomes possible next year?

On Nov. 30, a conference met in Washington, DC, to discuss the prospects for Thailand's politics, media, economy and foreign policy. In the capital of the world's superpower, conferences on Thailand are rare. A senior administration official and the new Thai ambassador delivered keynote addresses. The new U.S. ambassador to Thailand was in the audience. The meeting was about two themes, not one, the prospects for Thailand's reforms in the wake of the financial crisis and the prospects for the world in the wake of Sept. 11. The two are joined.

Dr Gothom Arya was among the leading reform activists for the 1997 constitution. He served on the first independent Election Commission until the Senate declined to renew his term. At the Washington conference, Gothom observed: "Thai society is a conservative society. The Constitution is more liberal than the society itself."

"The charter was passed because the financial crisis put Thailand's money politicians on the back foot. But now there is an absolute majority in Parliament. The politicians will strike back."

Political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak agreed. The bodies set up by the idealist Constitution-writers have already been "penetrated by vested interests and seized by individuals associated with political factions."

Reforms look great on paper, but implementation comes down to individuals. "Amending the Constitution will be like opening a can of worms. Once one provision is altered, others will be fair game."

All the speakers stressed the need for "participation" to defend constitutional bodies like the Election Commission and Counter-Corruption Commission from dilution. But it will be difficult. Gothom conceded that "the media are not very strong at the moment". He sighed: "We can expect some retreat."

The Nation's Kavi Chongkittavorn blamed the media's weakness on their own refusal to reform. Journalism was a "Jurassic park". Media-owners diversified too much in the boom, went down in the bust and are now vulnerable to money. Ted Bardacke, who covered Thailand for the Financial Times, noted the contrast with the mid-1990s. Then prime minister Banharn Silapa-archa would not decide his actions for the day until he knew what Matichon and The Nation were saying about him. Now Premier Thaksin Shinawatra controls the press through money and spin. There is "powerlessness and despair gripping newsrooms". The press has lost it ability to set the agenda.

The project to remove the electronic media from the monopoly control of government and army has run into the sand. A prominent broadcaster told the conference that the reform trend had been reversed into "a new level of corruption and manipulation".

The "first evil" of state control is still in place. The "second evil" of business control is on the rise. iTV was launched as a spearhead of media independence. Now it is a part of Shin-Thailand Inc. Media reform is fated, said the broadcaster, "until people realize that media are related to power".

For the Washington officials attending the conference, this meeting had a very different focus: What is the role of Thailand in the U.S. war on terrorism? How can the imminent visit of Prime Minister Thaksin be used to bind him more closely into American strategy?

One official asked what the U.S. should make of reports that Thai public opinion was in favor of neutrality. In short, what side is Thailand on? Dr Panitan Wattanayagorn answered gently. It's well-known that Thais like to avoid conflict. It's not surprising they favor neutrality. As Thailand is a democracy, the government must listen to its people. But at the level of government, national interest comes into play. Thailand is an ally of the US. The commitment is not in doubt.

The Department of State official began his keynote address with the usual remarks on his affection for Thailand and interest in its development. But he transited into the substance of his speech with one of the disjunctive preambles now standard in Washington. "Because we are at war," he began, and then laid out the cold reasoning of conflict. A questioner asked whether the U.S. was still committed to democracy and human rights in the international arena. Nothing has changed, he replied. But the answer echoed off the walls with the hollow clang of an empty bucket.

At home, the U.S. is strengthening its security services and sacrificing human and civic rights. Liberals are spooked by proposals for military tribunals, by rehabilitation of the CIA and by the Attorney-General's promise of sterner measures to come. But opinion polls show these measures have overwhelming popular support. A leading columnist, Tom Friedman, supported the bonfire of human rights on the terrifying grounds that the enemy, Osama, would do the same sort of thing.

This is the terrible logic of a war mentality. Rights have to be sacrificed to save civilization. People have to be killed to rescue humanity. For half a century the U.S. supported dictators and sponsored skullduggery as part of the cold war of democracy against totalitarianism. Now we have the war of "civilization" against terrorism.

Here the two parts of the Washington Thai conference came together. Because the U.S. is so powerful and because American influence on international media is so strong, the mood of the U.S. overflows its borders.

Thailand's reform movement of the 1990s was home-grown. But the Clinton era, with its emphasis on democracy and human rights, served as a favorable backdrop. Now the hawks are flying over Washington. Those in Thailand who want to roll back constitutional reform and block media liberalization will draw strength from the conservative mood in the world. What then are the prospects to complete Thailand's reforms, or even defend what has been gained, when the opponents "strike back"?

"Civil society has to be more vigilant," urged Gothom. But, in a time of war, Thailand's civil society will be on its own.